Is the A6700's manual white balance as good as the A7IV,A1? Over 30 feet still ambient light white balance.

Is the A6700 a good choice as an underwater video camera?

19 minutes ago, boduoguo said:

Is the A6700's manual white balance as good as the A7IV,A1? Over 30 feet still ambient light white balance.

Is the A6700 a good choice as an underwater video camera?

 

I'd say if you're a still photographer wanting to shoot more video, like me, this is a great choice. It's my choice, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. It shoots oversampled 4k 60p, has good rolling shutter specs. There's a 1.3x crop with stabilization, and something like 1.5x crop if you shoot 4k 120p, which is not great. All of this means that it's got the specs we want, and Sony's autofocusing is top of the class. Dunno about the setting white balance, but my guess is that it's doable.

35 minutes ago, humu9679 said:

 

I'd say if you're a still photographer wanting to shoot more video, like me, this is a great choice. It's my choice, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. It shoots oversampled 4k 60p, has good rolling shutter specs. There's a 1.3x crop with stabilization, and something like 1.5x crop if you shoot 4k 120p, which is not great. All of this means that it's got the specs we want, and Sony's autofocusing is top of the class. Dunno about the setting white balance, but my guess is that it's doable.

Yes, I do hope that the new device can do both video and photo.

Is 1650+WWL the ideal choice? The size is small for traveling.

9 hours ago, boduoguo said:

Yes, I do hope that the new device can do both video and photo.

Is 1650+WWL the ideal choice? The size is small for traveling.

 

Pretty much every modern mirrorless camera can do both, but it's a question of whether or not the manufacturer could mate cutting edge performance and price. You just have to decide which system you want to marry.

 

Lenses gets into a whole other realm of discussion. There are lots of opinions regarding this, and even on whether or not Nauticam's wet lenses are the way to go. The 1650 and WWL seems a good choice. Very good performance. Small enough (though smaller and lighter would be desirable). Others would argue that the WACP lenses are the way to go, but these are more expensive. Another plus for WWL lenses is that they pop up for sale with some regularity.

In my opinion, regarding the size the A6700 is not as suitable as a full-frame camera of the same size as a model from the A7C series. However, this is not due to the body, but to the poor quality of the 16-50 standard lens of the APS-C series. This means that even the WWL or the WACP-C won't help if the lens is poor. As far as full-frame lenses are concerned, the 28-60 is an excellent partner on which at least half of Sony's success under water is based.
If it's going to be a crop sensor (and the A6700 is incredibly good), I'd rather go with dome and Canon 9-15 with Metabones.

Regarding white balance - that was the original question: Should be exactly the same as in the newer FF-bodies.

3 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

In my opinion, regarding the size the A6700 is not as suitable as a full-frame camera of the same size as a model from the A7C series. However, this is not due to the body, but to the poor quality of the 16-50 standard lens of the APS-C series. This means that even the WWL or the WACP-C won't help if the lens is poor. As far as full-frame lenses are concerned, the 28-60 is an excellent partner on which at least half of Sony's success under water is based.
If it's going to be a crop sensor (and the A6700 is incredibly good), I'd rather go with dome and Canon 9-15 with Metabones.

If the A7CII's 4K60 without crop would be perfect, it's really one of the options I'm considering. 
the only advantage of the A6700 is that it has 4K60 uncropped.

5 hours ago, boduoguo said:

If the A7CII's 4K60 without crop would be perfect, it's really one of the options I'm considering. 
the only advantage of the A6700 is that it has 4K60 uncropped.

Ok, understood. A6700 is a really good one and also my GAS is already activated… 

Looking at the port charts the 10-20 with 180 dome could be an option. (Edit: with 6“ Acrylic Dome you don’t even need any adapter) But the 16-50 is such a crap… I had three of them over the years and each of them was really weak. The new version of the 16-50 doesn’t seem to have improved ( other than the new 10-20). 

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2024Oct 29 by fruehaufsteher2

On 10/30/2024 at 12:23 AM, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Ok, understood. A6700 is a really good one and also my GAS is already activated… 

Looking at the port charts the 10-20 with 180 dome could be an option. (Edit: with 6“ Acrylic Dome you don’t even need any adapter) But the 16-50 is such a crap… I had three of them over the years and each of them was really weak. The new version of the 16-50 doesn’t seem to have improved ( other than the new 10-20). 

 

 

 

Is the 16-50 not sharp enough or is it slow to focus? I asked backscatter and the 6700's manual white balance is not as good as the A7CII's and requires the use of a red filter, what bad news. I'm more inclined to go with the A7CII now.

My experience with the 16-50 was that it's neither fast nor sharp. On the other hand it's the perferred solution for many of the A6XXX users - maybe I'm too sceptical. Or those users have no comparison with better lenses.

I have no idea about the white balance of the A6700 but the bacscatter-information sounds too negative.

 

If you look at the MTF-Charts of the 16-50 https://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubehör-Test/Sony_E_16-50_mm_F3_5-5_6_OSS_PZ_II_SELP16502_im_Test/14437.aspx you can see that the edges are weak at wide angle.

 

In summary going with the A7C II is surely not the worst option.

null

On 10/31/2024 at 8:58 AM, fruehaufsteher2 said:

My experience with the 16-50 was that it's neither fast nor sharp. On the other hand it's the perferred solution for many of the A6XXX users - maybe I'm too sceptical. Or those users have no comparison with better lenses.

 

I guess it's more or less like my M43 kit lens 14-42mm. It seems crap but behind a WWL-1B it's decent.

This is A6700 + 16-50mm + WWL-C.

I don't like its color grading but rhe results are perfect.

 

 

 

I asked my local dealer recently and he told me that two options are preferred: 11-20 with 6“ dome (Nauticam has never been so cheap) or 16-50 with WWL. 

 

Here again: the lens is only one critical element, and underwater rules are not always similar to those above the surface. 
seems that besides the weaker performance of the 16-50, the combination with WWL provides better results. 

2 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I asked my local dealer recently and he told me that two options are preferred: 11-20 with 6“ dome (Nauticam has never been so cheap) or 16-50 with WWL. 

 

Here again: the lens is only one critical element, and underwater rules are not always similar to those above the surface. 
seems that besides the weaker performance of the 16-50, the combination with WWL provides better results. 

The WWL series is designed to take an average kit lens, like the 16-50, and both noticeably sharpen it and correct for water distortion.  It also significantly widens the FoV up to 130 degrees, depending on the specific lens used.   The corners are also sharp when used at f/8 and above on an APS-C.  There could still be a slight fisheye effect and some slight distortion in the extreme corners at the 16 end, but it’s a pretty amazing and versatile solution!